A La Carte (6/10)

I'm disappointed that you included Rick Warren's post about the 10 commandments. Are you saying that you endorse a man with questionable theological convictions and shaky understanding of the Christian doctrine? I'm very surprised that you included it regardless of what the content may be. It's not so much what a person says but their doctrinal position that should matter and I guess it's a lack of discernment on your part.

Regardless of what one thinks of Warren, I think every church should follow suit and have some sort of stated policy for their leaders.

I would have agreed with the content which is very good and accepted and would have willingly applied to my life but the problem is that it's coming from Warren whom I have sharp disagreements with his purpose-driven model applied to the church. If this was something that came from Piper, Dever, Mahaney, Duncan or the like, I would have accepted this post but it's coming from Warren. Therefore I reject this post though I am at pains that I'm doing this since the content is very wise but, again, it's not Piper, Dever, Mahaney and the like and so, therefore, I'm sad to reject Warren's post.

If you had linked to an article saying the same as Rick Warren but written by a non-christian, there wouldn't have been a word of dissent from anyone, but because it's the big bad cookie monster of Christendom, everyone is up in arms - that's just sad... We would do well to follow the advice of Paul and "test everything, and hold fast to what is good". This advice is good!

Jerry and Frank, please tell me those comments were in jest?!

Throw the baby out with the dishwater then!?

I wouldn't normally refer anyone to Rick Warren's teachings or books...yet the "Ten Commandments" list is a great and simple set of protective, defensive and solid rules for anyone in ministry to follow regarding the opposite sex.

Should we just trash it and slash it out of hand JUST because it came from Warren?

I wanted to add this excerpt from a link that was in one post in Justin Taylor's blog:

I thank God for what is so good about this New Calvinism, but I also have some concerns. Trying really hard to leave the substantive theological disagreements aside for now, I mention a few observations about some rather worrisome features of this movement.

One is this: they would do well to know their own tradition better. Consider as a case study the doctrine of divine sovereignty. I take it to be universally accepted (or at least nearly so) among the New Calvinists that divine sovereignty entails determinism. But Richard Muller (a top-tier Reformation scholar and the leading historian of 17th century Reformed theology) insists that within post-Reformation scholasticism there is “not even a tendency toward metaphysical determinism” (PRRD, I, p. 128). Muller says this as he is applying the finishing touches to the coffin for the old “central dogma” myth. But it seems quite obvious to me that there indeed is a central dogma to the New Calvinism: belief that God determines everything, and that he does so for his own glory, is taken to be necessary and sufficient. If you are a Christian who believes this, then you can safely claim to be “Reformed.” But by more traditional accounts, it is less than obvious that this is either necessary or sufficient.

Furthermore, it would be good if they would set themselves to the task of coming to a better understanding of the broader Christian tradition. I know that we all need this advice (well, at least I do), but it seems to me that the New Calvinists are far more interested in reading Edwards or Owen (worthy reads to be sure) than they are in mining the riches of patristic theology or grappling with the subtleties of medieval scholasticism. This is, I fear, to the detriment of the movement, and more development in this area might go some distance toward loosening the unhealthy reliance of some of these New Calvinists on what might be called the “Neo-Reformed Magisterium” (the small group of theologians and conference speakers who are sometimes quoted as the final word on any theological topic at issue... if you doubt what I say, consult Collin Hansen’s sobering observations about “Piper fiends” and those who “worship” John Piper, Young, Restless, Reformed, pp. 14, 46).

No theological tradition has cornered the market on arrogance. I have been accused of it (sometimes, I fear, with very good reason). Yet there seems to be – though I’m sure that what I say here is highly fallible – an amazing quantity of it among the New Calvinists. I’ve been told that my resistance to “the doctrines of grace” (no hubris in that label?) is a sign of my probable reprobation. I’ve had the senior pastor of a fine evangelical church tell me that although we were welcome to attend, I could not expect to be involved in any way because I was not “Reformed” – even though this particular church was not confessionally Reformed at all (their official statement of faith was generically evangelical). A friend (who teaches theology in a seminary in the Methodist tradition) told me of helping an incoming student (at a seminary in the Reformed tradition) move into a neighboring house. When the incoming student – who, if memory serves, was about to begin an MDiv – discovered that my friend was a Wesleyan, he quickly said “you guys don’t think much about things, do you?” Another friend expressed doubts about aspects of Calvinism and then was rejected by a missions agency for perceived confusion about the gospel. Alas, such stories are not rare. They are legion. Again, I am well aware that New Calvinism does not have a monopoly on theological arrogance, and I’m also very happy to say that many Calvinists do not exhibit this at all. And perhaps it is simply easier to spot it in someone else. Still, though, I mention it as an abiding concern.

"Love him or hate him..."Isn't hating a brother like hating Jesus? Or do we Calvinists not consider Warren a brother? Not trying to judge anyone's heart here, but I am pretty certain we will see him in heaven with all the people who now love Jesus because of Warren's ministry. Not sure why a heretic would be that passionate about keeping extra-marital pursuits out of his staff.Go ahead and comment-rebuke me. This is just my $0.02.

I am way more concerned about the heartbreaking disparity between Christianity Today's endorsement of the Sex and the City movie and mighty man of God, Mark Dever's caution and apparent conviction over using videos in church.

GO CHALLIES!

On the lighter side Tim, thanks for posting the tip on the watch bargain. I picked one of those bad boys up myself for, er....father's day.